AIMR
Conference on Venture Capital Investing
A Private Investment Benchmark
by
Austin M. Long, III
MPA, CPA, JD
Craig J. Nickels, CFA
The University of Texas System
February 13, 1996
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
•
A private investment benchmark should be:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Unambiguous
Investable
Measurable
Appropriate
Reflective of current investment opinions
Specified in advance
We believe that, for private investments, no existing benchmark encompasses all (or even most)
of these characteristics. We have therefore designed a custom benchmark that is as inclusive of
these characteristics as possible. See Section 1.0 on page 3 below.
•
We recommend two courses of action, which we hope are complementary:
•
Given the background cited in Section 2.0 on page 5, investors in the private
markets should use the S&P 500 index (or some other index of publicly traded
securities deemed more appropriate) as a benchmark, translating the index from a
time-weighted basis to a time-weighted dollar-weighted (i.e., IRR) basis using
either the total return method described in Section 3.0 on page 7 or the horizon
return method described in Section 4.0 on page 8.
In comparing managers within an asset class, investors in the private
markets can make use of the Rosetta stone mechanism of the total return
cross-index comparison outlined in Section 5.0 on page 9 or the horizon
return cross-index comparison in Section 6.0 on page 10. These comparisons
are unbiased estimates of the relative returns of two managers computed by
computing the two managers’ index comparisons and then comparing the
results. See APPENDIX A on page 13 for an example computation.
This translated index comparison should be assessed by some appropriate
statistical measure in order to determine whether the return realized is
statistically significant. See Section 7.0 on page 10; also see APPENDIX B
on page 14 for numerical examples.
Please note in the context of statistical validity that whether a
given investor requires a premium over the translated S&P index
(and, if so, how much of a premium) depends upon the relative
risk1 of the particular private investment evaluated and/or upon the
liquidity needs of the investor.
1
We will deal with this topic in our upcoming paper Stochastic Models for Optimal Asset Allocation in the
Private Investment Portfolio, by Austin M. Long, III and Craig J. Nickels, which will be delivered at the
May 18-19 Mezzanine Finance ‘95 Symposium in New York.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 2 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
It is also extremely important to keep in mind that this
performance measurement method is only valid over fairly long
periods of time, preferably at least one market cycle.
•
Investors in the private markets should also establish a single, pooled investment
history database with a view to long-term verification and testing of the results of
the benchmark proposed in the preceding bullet. See Section 8.0 on page 11.
Study and testing of the combined investment experience of all
participants in the private markets may lead to development of a new
benchmark based on factor analysis or some other consistent, defensible
computational method.
In addition, correlation of the results of the index comparison method
proposed above with the history available in the substantial database of the
aggregate private investors’ portfolios should make it possible to derive
and implement a kind of statistical quality control in which portfolio
managers would have a rigorous idea of whether their portfolio returns are
within or outside the bounds of expected returns.
Finally, this historical database could be used to develop correlation, risk
and return characteristics that could enable institutional private investment
portfolio managers to conduct asset allocation studies to optimize their
portfolios.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 3 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
1.0
Characteristics of an appropriate benchmark
In his article “Are Manager Universes Acceptable Performance Benchmarks?”2 Jeffery V.
Bailey, CFA, questioned the validity of using manager data as a benchmark on three grounds:
conceptual shortcomings, survivor bias and failure to pass benchmark quality tests. The first two
reasons cited by Bailey for doubting the usefulness of comparing managers in the same market to
one another apply to the private markets as well. The third reason, relating to benchmark quality
tests, applies to the private markets only as to a single aspect.
First, in assessing the conceptual shortcomings of the use of manager comparisons as
benchmarks, Bailey cited six qualities required for a valid benchmark. Applying Bailey’s
framework to the private markets, the benchmark ultimately chosen should be:
1.1 Unambiguous
The names and weights of all portfolio securities in the benchmark should
be clearly delineated.
1.2 Investable
The investor should have the option of adopting a totally passive approach
by investing in the benchmark itself, in which case the amount invested
should not disrupt the market.
1.3 Measurable
The investor should be able to calculate returns to the benchmark
reasonably frequently, but in any case at least as frequently as the
investor’s results are measured by its board or other responsible fiduciary.
1.4 Appropriate
The benchmark chosen should be consistent with the style of the
investment manager whose performance is being gauged.
1.5 Reflective of current investment opinions
All participants in the market in which the investor is participating must be
able to have current knowledge of the benchmark.
1.6 Specified in advance
The benchmark computation should be constructed prior to the start of an
evaluation period.
Second, Bailey also pointed out the long-recognized problem of survivor bias. While this
problem is difficult enough in the public markets, it is even more significant in the private
markets. The most often-cited example is the self-selected reporting universe of venture capital
partnerships used by Venture Economics to compute its venture capital index. In Venture
Economics’ case, partnerships need not go out of business in order to bias the index; rather, firms
with poor returns simply cease to report, leaving the more successful firms to populate the index.
2
The Journal of Portfolio Management, Spring 1992.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 4 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
I expect the future Venture Economics index, which will include all forms of private equity
investment, will have the same problem.
Third, and finally, Bailey lists a number of what he calls benchmark quality tests, including:
•
High coverage - a consistently high proportion of a manager’s actual portfolio
should be in the benchmark.
•
Low turnover - the benchmark’s turnover should reflect the passive alternative it
represents.
•
Positive active positions - the position held by the manager should be larger than the
same position held in the benchmark, reflecting a positive choice to accentuate one
of the benchmark’s characteristics.
•
Investable position sizes - if the manager liquidated the investor’s portfolio to invest
in the benchmark, the market benchmark should be capable of absorbing the
investment without distorting the market.
•
Reduced observed active risk - when comparing the manager’s portfolio to the
benchmark, volatility should be less than when the same portfolio is compared to
the market.
•
High extra-market return correlation between the managed portfolio and the
benchmark - the benchmark should explain a high proportion of the manager’s
returns in excess of the market.
•
Low extra-market return correlation between the benchmark and the managed
portfolio versus the benchmark - whether the manager’s style is in or out of favor
should have no effect on the benchmark.
•
Similar risk exposures - over time, the benchmark should exhibit investment risk
similar to that of the managed portfolio.
I mention these quality tests of benchmarks, as described by Bailey, only for the sake of
completeness in describing his views. These quality tests, most of which amount to making the
development of a benchmark a difficult process which must be applied in a unique way to every
conceivable manager style, are designed primarily to make the design of a benchmark the
province of a very few highly compensated specialists. We believe that only one of these quality
tests applies to the private markets: the requirement of an investable position size. Note that this
quality test is essentially redundant to the requirement, detailed above, that a proper benchmark
must be investable.
Because no existing private investment benchmark incorporates all of (or even most of) the
benchmark criteria set out above, we believe that the institutional private investor community
must develop a new benchmark, preferably one which will be usable for the widest possible
definition of the private investment marketplace. At The University of Texas System, we have
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 5 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
developed a benchmark based on the S&P 500 index which we use to determine performance
compensation. The paragraphs below examine our reasons for the use of the S&P 500 index,
detail how we compute the index on both a total return and a horizon return basis, show how we
use the benchmark to determine relative performance and propose standards for statistical
validity.
2.0
A possible benchmark: the S&P 500
The AIMR Performance Presentation Standards require investment returns on portfolios of listed
securities to be computed and presented using the time-weighted rate of return method. The
time-weighted rate of return method, which intentionally eliminates the effects of interim cash
flows by revaluing the portfolio at each cash flow date, is equivalent to the simple geometric
linking of returns which is used to compute benchmark indexes, including the S&P 500. Private
(or so-called alternative) investments, including venture capital funds, leveraged acquisition
funds, mezzanine funds, oil & gas, etc., on the other hand, are generally reported using the
internal rate of return method. The internal rate of return method gives weight to interim cash
flows based on their amounts and timing.
While in the marketing of private investment funds these two return measures (i.e., geometric
linking of the S&P 500 and a fund’s internal rate of return) are commonly presented as
comparable, in many cases they are not. The fact that a private market investment fund has
achieved an internal rate of return in excess of the total return to the S&P 500 over a particular
period of time does not necessarily mean that the private market investment has outperformed
the S&P 500. It is true that a given listed investment’s return (or, for that matter, the return to an
index of listed equities) can be computed both ways (i.e., using time-weighted rate of return and
internal rate of return) with approximately equal results. However, a comparison between the
internal rate of return to a private market investment and the time-weighted rate of return to a
public market index over the same time period does not take into account the timing of the cash
flows used to generate the private market return. When the timing of cash flows is taken into
account, the return to a private market investment and the return to a public market index over
the same time period can diverge significantly, particularly over long time periods, volatile
public markets and numerous cash contributions and distributions. Thus, comparison of private
market investments with public market indexes requires an analytical method which takes into
account the timing and amounts of the relevant cash flows to the private market investment.
The analytical methods set out below make it possible to make a direct and meaningful
comparison between the return on an investment in any index of returns computed on a timeweighted rate of return basis and the return on a private market investment computed on an
internal rate of return basis. These methods assume, but are not limited to, quarterly reporting.
We refer to these analytical methods as the index return comparison (which measures the
performance of a private investment relative to the performance of a public stock index) and the
cross-index return comparison (which measures the relative performance of two private
investments by comparing the two investments’ index return comparisons)3. These two
3
We are now using the cross-index comparison method to analyze and compare fund investment
opportunities for both U.T.’s private endowment, the Common Trust Fund (on a total return basis) and its
public endowment, the Permanent University Fund (on a horizon return basis).
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 6 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
performance measures can be computed on both a total return basis and a horizon return basis4,
depending upon the income reinvestment characteristics of the particular portfolio.
We believe that the index return comparison (or, as applied to distinguishing among individual
private investment managers on the basis of relative performance, the cross-index return
comparison) possesses all but one of the requirements stated above for a benchmark. Thus, the
index return comparison is:
•
Unambiguous - every market participant knows the names and weights of all the
securities involved.
•
Investable - the S&P index is among the most liquid securities in the world; every
investor has the totally passive alternative of investing in the index. It therefore
follows that every equity investment must be compared to this passive alternative in
order to rationalize investing in any other asset class. In short, the S&P 500 is the
gold standard of equity investment.
•
Measurable - every investor can calculate the return to the S&P 500 or any return
based on the S&P 500 on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly or any other basis.
•
Reflective of current investment opinions - the makeup of the index changes as the
market caps of its component companies changes, and all market participants have
current knowledge of the makeup of the benchmark.
•
Specified in advance - a benchmark promulgated by the institutional private
investment community and calculated using the procedures spelled out in this
proposal would be known to its users in advance.
Perhaps the only element of a benchmark which is not satisfied by the index comparison method
detailed above is the requirement that the benchmark be appropriate. The author means that term
to apply to a benchmark which is consistent with the style of the manager whose performance is
being gauged. I believe that the best that can be said of the index comparison is that it is equally
inappropriate for all private investments and that it is therefore a neutral factor in judging among
them (or judging among managers in a particular asset class). This last statement is the
underlying premise on which the cross-index comparison is based. See Section 5.0 on page 9 for
the total return cross-index comparison method and Section 6.0 on page 10 for the horizon return
cross-index comparison method.
Put simply, whether the investor is analyzing private investments in general, a specific private
investment asset class or a specific manager within an asset class, the ultimate question to ask is
“Can private investments (or this asset class within private investments or this manager) beat the
S&P 500 over the long term by an amount sufficient to make it worthwhile to invest?”
It is extremely important to note that both the index return comparison and the cross-index return
comparison are intended to be used over fairly extended time periods, preferably at least one full
market cycle. Shorter periods, given the volatility of both the public and private equity markets,
4
The Permanent University Fund, U.T.’s public endowment, must pay out all income as it is received and
therefore is managed on a horizon return (as opposed to a total return) basis.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 7 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
are simply not meaningful. Private investments, as a whole, are a long-term asset class and it is
easy to reach erroneous conclusions in the short run.
3.0
Total return index comparison
There are two steps to determine the total return index comparison:
3.1 Compute the internal rate of return of the private investment portfolio.
• Obtain private investment asset, vintage and/or overall portfolio actual returns by
listing their cash flows in columns, each cash flow accompanied by its date, using
natural signs (i.e., cash inflows are positive numbers and cash outflows are negative
numbers).
• The final cash flow for each investment is its value at the report date (i.e., all valuations are assumed realized at the report date).
• Compute an IRR for the private investment asset, vintage and/or overall portfolios
using these cash flows.
3.2 Compute the comparable total return to an index of public stocks had the cash flows
in 3.1 been invested in the index.
• List all cash flows as above for actual portfolio returns, but without showing an
ending value/cash flow.
• Compute the ending value/cash flow as follows:
1. Treat the first (negative) cash flow as having been invested in the relevant index.
2. Using an end-of-period assumption, grow that cash flow over the time
between the first and second cash flow at the rates indicated by the linked
index.
3. At the point of the next cash flow, grow the new net amount (i.e., the
amount of the prior cash flow grown by the linked index return plus the
new cash flow) by the relevant linked index until the date of the next cash
flow.
Note that the next cash flow could be a distribution from the private
investment, which would be treated as a withdrawal from the index
investment. Thus, the new net amount could be the amount of the prior
cash flow grown by the linked index return minus the new cash flow.5
4. Repeat 3 until the calculation arrives at the current report date.
5. Compute the IRR of the investment using the portfolio value at the
current report date, as computed in steps 1-4 above, as the final cash
flow/valuation as in the actual portfolio return computation above.
5
If a private investment greatly outperforms the index because it makes frequent large distributions it is
possible for the final value determined by the index comparison to be negative. In effect, frequent large
withdrawals from the index result in a net short position in the index comparison. See the numerical
example in APPENDIX B on page 14.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 8 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
These two returns, the actual portfolio internal rate of return on the one hand and the pro forma
index comparison return on the other, represent a direct comparison of how net funds invested in
the private investment portfolio would have performed on a total return basis had they been
invested in the applicable public stock index over the life of the particular investment.
4.0
Horizon return index comparison
The horizon rate of return is designed to determine an overall return for an investment with a
differential reinvestment rate between capital returns and income returns.
The constitution of the State of Texas requires the Permanent University Fund to pay out all its
income currently. The Texas Constitution also forbids the expenditure of Permanent University
Fund corpus - U.T. must issue bonds to realize gains in the portfolio, and the interest expense on
those bonds are netted out of the income stream. Returns to the PUF portfolio, then, are not total
returns in the ordinary sense because interest and dividends cannot be reinvested and the corpus
cannot be paid out. In effect, the PUF represents the logical extreme of a forced payout, since it
must pay out 100% of its income. Returns to the PUF portfolio are therefore best measured on a
horizon return basis. Other endowments and foundations with mandatory payouts may benefit
from the same approach, even though the amount required to be paid out may be less than 100%
of income.
In general, the horizon rate is determined by splitting the two return streams into two separate
computations. The income received is compounded using its particular applicable reinvestment
rate to determine its aggregate future value at the final (horizon) period. This future value is then
placed into the final period of the capital component as an addition to its terminal value. The
internal rate of return of the restated capital component is the horizon rate of return.
There are two steps to determine the horizon return cross-index comparison:
4.1 Compute the horizon rate of return of the private investment portfolio
• Obtain private investment asset, vintage and/or overall portfolio actual horizon
returns by listing their cash flows in columns, each cash flow accompanied by its
date, using natural signs (i.e., cash inflows are positive numbers and cash
outflows are negative numbers), with income returns reported separately from
return of capital or capital gains distributions.
• Because the compound reinvestment rate of income returns is zero for the PUF,
for example (since all income must be paid out currently), carry all income returns
to the final period (presumably the reporting period) at a future value of 1. If the
mandatory payout is less than all income received, or if the income reinvestment
rate is lower than the reinvestment rate for capital returns and capital gains, carry
all income returns forward to the final period at the applicable compound growth
rate.
• The final cash flow for each investment is (1) its value at the report date (i.e., all
valuations are assumed realized at the report date) plus (2) the sum of all income
during the holding period as determined in the previous step.
• Compute an IRR for the private investment asset, vintage and/or overall
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 9 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
portfolios using these cash flows.
This is the horizon IRR for the private investment portfolio.
4.2 Compute the comparable horizon return to an index of public stocks
• List all cash flows as above for actual portfolio returns, but without an ending
value/cash flow at the report date.
• Break the public stock index into a capital gain component and a reinvested
income return component.
• Compute the ending value/cash flow as follows:
1. Treat the first (negative) cash flow as having been invested in the
relevant index.
2. Using an end-of-period assumption, grow that cash flow over the
time between the first and second cash flow at the capital growth rates
indicated by the linked index.
3. Carry the income return component to the index over the period
between the first and second cash flows forward to the final period of
the horizon return (presumably the reporting period) dollar for dollar
(i.e., with a future value of 1, assuming no reinvestment).
4. At the point of the next cash flow, grow the net amount (the capital
portion only) by the relevant linked index to the next cash flow until
the calculation arrives at the current report date.
Note that the next cash flow could be a distribution from the private
investment, which would be treated as a withdrawal from the index
investment. Thus, the new net amount could be the amount of the prior
cash flow grown by the linked index return minus the new cash flow.6
Remember that the character of the distribution will make a difference:
distributions from capital will be taken out of the compounding capital
gain portion of the index, while distributions of income will be taken
out of the income return to the index for the period in question.
4. Use the portfolio value at the current report date, as computed in
steps 1-3 above, as the final cash flow/valuation as in the actual
portfolio return computation above and compute an IRR.
These two horizon returns, the actual portfolio horizon return on the one hand and the proforma
index horizon return on the other, represent a direct comparison of how net funds invested in the
private investment portfolio performed or would have performed on a horizon return basis if
invested in the applicable public stock index over the life of the particular investment.
6
See APPENDIX B on page 14.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 10 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
5.0
Total return cross-index comparison
The cross-index comparison, as depicted in APPENDIX A on page 13, involves computing the
index comparisons of two private investments. The two index comparisons represent
underperformance or overperformance relative to the benchmark index for both investments. A
comparison of these two investments using a common standard (i.e., a cross-index comparison in
which one index comparison is compared to another) yields an unbiased, realistic view of how
each private investment would have performed had its cash flows been invested in or withdrawn
from the S&P 500 index. The effect is somewhat like that of the famous Rosetta stone, which
enabled scholars to translate two unrelated languages by comparing both to a common
translation inscription in a known language. In the case of the cross-index comparison, the
common language is the S&P 500.
Note that in APPENDIX A the cross-index comparison makes it clear that Manager B, with an
identical IRR to Manager A, underperformed the S&P 500 index comparison by 200 basis points
while Manager A overperformed by 200 basis points. These index comparison return
differentials are the results of the timing and amounts of cash flows employed by the two
managers. Comparing the performance of these two private investment managers to a common
standard enables the analyst to determine which has actually been superior to the other in terms
of beating the S&P 500.
6.0
Horizon return cross-index comparison
The horizon return cross-index comparison is performed exactly like the total return cross-index
comparison in Sec. 5.0 above, except that both the private investment and the index comparison
are computed on a horizon return basis as shown in Sec. 4.0 above.
7.0
Statistical measures of the significance of the index return comparison
The threshold question is whether the horizon return or the total return of a particular private
investment portfolio vintage as computed above is statistically significantly different from the
horizon return or total return to the S&P index comparison. In other words, the question is
whether the private investment portfolio vintage has statistically outperformed the returns which
could have been obtained by investing in or withdrawing funds from the S&P 500 index with the
same cash flows invested into or distributed from the private investments actually chosen. A
quantitative answer to this question yields an objective measure of relative underperformance or
overperformance (as opposed to an arbitrary differentiation based on some static measure or a
simple comparison with historical returns).
Briefly, we propose the following steps to compute the statistical validity of overperformance:
• Assess the volatility of the index comparison by computing the regression equation
with the best R2.
• Use the resulting equation to compute a point prediction of the returns expected for
the final time period.
• Using the standard error of the estimate for the regression equation, calculate the
standard deviation of the predicted value of the point prediction of the final value of the
index.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 11 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
Private investment vintage performance in excess of 2 standard deviations from this point
estimate should be considered overperformance of the index comparison because there is less
than a 5% chance that the difference between the two returns is due to chance. Private
investment vintage performance which results in a negative final index comparison value should
be considered overperformance in every case (see APPENDIX B on page 14). The graph below
shows the PUF 1989 vintage and the S&P index return comparison for the same cash flows:
Whether a particular investor requires some stated premium over the index comparison will
depend in part upon the investor’s judgment of the relative risk78 of private investments and in
part on the investor’s liquidity needs.
8.0
Another possible benchmark: comparison with historical data
If the combined private investment return data of a sizable number of institutional investors in
the private equity markets (including a look-through view of the companies making up the
portfolios of limited partnerships) were available on a database, investors could research private
investments in general, as well as each private investment asset class. Such a database could be
resident in an encrypted form on a secure server, available for query by authorized members.
This resource and the lessons it could teach could be a substantial competitive advantage in the
increasingly competitive private investment market. The following possible research emphases
7
8
We will deal with this topic in our upcoming paper Stochastic Models for Optimal Asset Allocation in the
Private Investment Portfolio, by Austin M. Long, III and Craig J. Nickels, which will be delivered at the
May 18-19 Mezzanine Finance ‘95 Symposium in New York. Also see Alternative Asset Allocation Using
Monte Carlo Simulation, by the same authors, presented to the First Annual Endowments & Foundations
Symposium in New York, March 28, 1995.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 12 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
represent a small fraction of the knowledge to be gained by studying the proposed institutional
private investor database:
•
Study and testing of the combined investment experience of the institutional private
investment community may lead to development of a new benchmark based on
factor analysis or some other consistent, defensible computational method.
•
In addition, correlation of the results of the index comparison method proposed
above with the history available in the substantial database of the aggregate
portfolios should make it possible to derive and implement a kind of statistical
quality control in which portfolio managers would have a rigorous idea of whether
their portfolio returns are within or outside the bounds of expected returns.
•
Finally, this historical database could be used to develop correlation, risk and return
characteristics which could enable the institutional private investment portfolio
managers to conduct asset allocation studies to optimize their portfolios. See
footnote 8. on page 11.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 13 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
APPENDIX A
The Cross-Index Return Comparison
Manager A drew a $1 million investment commitment at the close and immediately invested it in
a private investment yielding $5.1 million and an IRR of about 20%. Manager A can therefore
appropriately claim to have beaten the S&P 500’s return of 18%.
Manager B, on the other hand, drew a $1 million commitment in five installments. Manager B
may also claim to have beaten the S&P by the same margin since he or she also has achieved a
20% IRR over the same period. However, had Manager B invested the same cash flows in the
S&P 500 index, he or she would have achieved an IRR of 22%. Manager B, instead of
outperforming the S&P 500 by 200 basis points, has instead underperformed the index
comparison by 200 basis points.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 14 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
APPENDIX B
The numerical example below shows a private investment with an IRR of 3.18% which has
apparently underperformed the S&P’s 5.63% compound return over the same period. However,
when the same cash flows are invested into or taken out of the S&P, the returns to the same cash
flows had they been invested into and withdrawn from the S&P with the same timing would
have resulted in an IRR (i.e., an index comparison return) of 2.09%. The $200 distribution of
cash in the final period of the IRR computation is a withdrawal from the S&P 500 for purposes
of the index comparison computation.
Note that the purpose of the Index Comparison column is solely to compute the final value of the
S&P 500 assuming the same cash flows as those in the Cash Flow column (i.e., the same cash
flows as the private investment).
If a private investment greatly outperforms the index because it makes frequent, large
distributions it is possible for the final value determined by the index comparison to be negative.
This is possible because in the index comparison method, large distributions (whether of return
of capital, capital gains or income) are subtracted from the current value of the index
comparison. If a particular distribution is in excess of the compound value remaining in the index
comparison after taking into account all the contributions and distributions of prior periods, the
result is, in effect, a short position on the S&P. Thus, as is the case in any short position, the
better the S&P does in periods after the index comparison has gone negative the worse the
comparison portfolio does and the better the private investment performs by comparison.
In the example below, the large distribution in period 5 is in excess of the cumulative value of
the S&P 500 up to that point. The result is that the value of the S&P 500 after the distribution is a
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 15 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
negative 42.849 and the final value of the S&P 500 compounds to negative 80.844. Using this
final, negative value of the S&P 500 results in an index comparison return of negative 9.24%, as
compared to an IRR to the investment of 9.19% as follows:
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 16 of 17
Proposed Private Investment Benchmark (continued)
The 1983 vintage below illustrates the same principle in an actual portfolio:
As the graph above indicates, the 1983 index so outperformed its index comparison that the
index comparison’s return dropped to -100% (i.e., a total loss) due to large cash distributions
from the private investment.
CONFIDENTIAL
Page 17 of 17